| |
|
|
 Knicks in seven? Here's why
Posted: Wednesday June 16, 1999 05:22 PM
Got an NBA question? Click here to e-mail Phil Taylor. I think there's a bounty out on me here in San Antonio. In the magazine this week, I picked the Knicks to win in seven, and the lead story on one of the local news shows on Tuesday was "SI picks Knicks." Talk about a slow news day. In any event, I'm not a popular guy with Spurs fans right now. They're probably not the only people who heard my pick and figured I must have had too many margaritas down on the Riverwalk, but at least let me try to explain. If the Spurs don't win this thing quickly, New York has a chance. San Antonio hasn't had a tough series yet because the Blazers and Lakers simply cracked under pressure and fell apart internally. The Knicks won't do that. Maybe the Spurs' size advantage and the Knicks' injuries will be too much for New York to overcome and San Antonio will win in 4 or 5. But if it goes longer than that, it means the Knicks have found a way to compensate for the talent gap inside, and that means they have a chance. The longer the series goes, the more questions the Spurs will have to answer about not being able to put the Knicks away, and the better the chances that they will start to press. The Spurs should win, no question about it. But that fact may end up doing them more harm than good.
Do you think it would be wise for the Knicks to take their chances by
putting Kurt Thomas
1-on-1 with David
Robinson and using their fouls with Duncan? He is a 55% free throw
shooter, which I seem to believe might be his only weakness. Also, do you
think the Knicks should come out and just run with the ball hoping that the
Spurs won't be able to keep up the pace? We're thinking pretty much the same way, Ed. I would use Chris Dudley on Duncan as much as I could. Duncan might not hurt the Knicks that much at the foul line, and guarding Robinson would help keep Marcus Camby out of foul trouble, which is the one thing that the Knicks can't survive. Late in the game, if Camby's not in foul trouble, I might put him on Duncan. But Jeff Van Gundy's going to have to be very careful, because he just doesn't have that many fouls to use on the Spurs' big men. The Knicks have to push the ball down the floor at every opportunity, because there's no way they can win a halfcourt game with the Spurs. The problem is, San Antonio is a much better running team than Indiana. It might not work for the Knicks, but they have no choice but to try.
The Spurs hold the obvious frontcourt advantage over the Knicks, but it
seems as if the Knicks have a significant backcourt edge. Should the
Knicks focus on trying to find an answer for the Twin Towers (which would
probably be futile), or attempt to dominate San Antonio's guards in order
to take the series? The Knicks have to take the attitude that the Twin Towers will get their points, but there's no reason that Mario Elie , Jaren Jackson and Sean Elliott have to hit those dagger-to-the-heart threes that they've dropped on other teams. New York has to be as dominant on the perimeter as San Antonio is on the inside. If I were Van Gundy, I'd make it a goal not to let any Spur other than the Twin Towers score in double figures. That may be too much to ask, but that's what the Knicks have to shoot for.
Who do you think will be the dominant player of the series? Do you
think that Robinson in his ever improving status will become MVP of the
series or do you think another player will take it? It's funny you should mention Robinson because I think he has a very good shot at MVP. The Knicks are going to be hacking Duncan, and that may open up more opportunities for The Admiral. Also, if the Spurs win, there's going to be some sentimental feeling for Robinson after the bashing he's taken over the years. If the Knicks win, Latrell Sprewell has a good chance to get it, because he's the guy the Spurs are least equipped to deal with. Then we'd see David Stern's worst nightmare -- having to hand the award to Spree.
Do you think that Phil Jackson is overrated as a coach due to the
inability of fans to disentangle his achievements with those of Michael Jordan? Would you
hire him for that kind of money? I don't think Jackson who can win with whatever team you give him, like Larry Brown , or even George Karl , but he is very good at balancing big egos and getting the most out of great talent. If anyone can get Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal on the same page, for example, it should be Phil. He has an advantage in that the Lakers players basically talked Jerry Buss and Jerry West into getting him, so he'll obviously have their respect. Is he overrated? In general, I would say yes. If I were the GM of most teams, I wouldn't pay him $7 million a year. But he might be uniquely well-suited to coach this Laker team.
If you were in Donnie Walsh's' shoes, what would you do in this off
season in an effort to get the Pacers' to the NBA Finals? I'm not of the opinion that the Pacers need to blow up their team just because they lost the series. The East is still weak, and they're window of opportunity to get to the Finals isn't closed. But one thing I would do is replace Chris Mullin in the starting lineup with Jalen Rose at small forward. That would make them more athletic in a hurry. Mullin can still help Indiana, but it should be more in a spot role, against certain matchups. And it's time once and for all to find out just how good Jalen is, or isn't. One of the reasons he's been inconsistent is that his minutes have been inconsistent. At this point in their careers, Mullin is better suited to coming off the bench and Rose is better suited to starting. Beyond that, Indiana isn't in a position to make a lot of changes. They don't have the cap room to add an impact player, and they don't have a lot of tradable players, either. The Davises' (Antonio and Dale) value was much greater a year ago, when Indiana wouldn't part with either one of them to get Sprewell, than it is now. At center, all they can really do is hope Smits' feet don't get any worse, because they certainly can't trade him for anything of value. Indiana's going to come back with largely the same team next year, which isn't the worst thing in the world. Two weeks ago, that team seemed plenty good enough, and a year from now, it might seem that way again.
Being from San Diego I have no favorite NBA team but like to watch
basketball until this year's playoffs and have turned off several games
because the officiating is so bad and the referees have obviously decided
who is going to win the game. Am I the only person who can see this?
I wouldn't say that the refs have decided who they want to win the game, but I do agree that there has been some shaky officiating. The Larry Johnson 4-point play on which Jess Kersey came up with a new definition of continuation was the best example, and I thought there were a lot of borderline calls that went against the Pacers down the stretch in Game 6 of the Eastern Conference finals. But it has been this way for several years now. I think one of the reasons for it is that there's this mentality that the game has to be called differently in the playoffs, that you're supposed to swallow the whistle. That leads to too much subjectivity. The way the game is called changes from official to official, and pretty soon you have players and fans wondering what's going on out there. But turn the games back on, Marge. The refs may make mistakes, but I guarantee you they're not crooked.
What do you think would have happened had Michael not retired and was
back with all the Bulls ? Would he be able to stop the rampaging Spurs?
Somehow I feel Spurs would have got the better of them in a fabulous
series. Michael never loses. At least, I would never bet on him losing. I think if he and the old Bulls were still intact they would find a way to beat the Spurs, if only because Michael wouldn't be able to live with the knowledge that he lost to David Robinson. The Bulls' strategy would probably be to allow Duncan and even Robinson to get theirs (wouldn't it be interesting to see Dennis Rodman test the Admiral's newfound toughness?), but to take away the Spurs' perimeter people -- Elliott, Elie, Avery Johnson and Jaren Jackson . In MJ, Scottie Pippen and Ron Harper , Chicago had the perimeter defense to make that happen. My guess is that they'd concentrate especially on Elliott, who would have a nightmarish series. We'd find out whether Duncan and Robinson could carry the Spurs on their backs, and I think the answer would be Bulls in 6.
My questions are about the Rockets. First, do you expect they will
re-sign Charles
Barkley. I think they should given he was the best player on the team
against the Lakers and still is a great player. Second, do you think they
could trade up in the draft to take someone like the forward from Miami of
Ohio (Wally Szczerbiak). Maybe they could trade either Pippen or Cuttino Mobley.
Finally, are there any free agents they could attempt to sign to bring some
youth and size to the front court? The chances are a little better than 50-50 that Houston will re-sign Sir Charles. I think he still wants to play, and he knows he still can play. The Rockets don't have enough tradable commodities to move up in the draft, but one rumor that has been floating is that they'll deal Pippen to the Lakers for Glen Rice , which makes even more sense now that Jackson's in Los Angeles. That wouldn't necessarily solve all of Houston's problems, since Rice wants to go someplace he can be The Man, but he'd certainly be more comfortable than Pippen was with spotting up outside and waiting for the ball while Barkley and Hakeem Olajuwon post-up. If the Rockets re-sign Barkley, their offense won't change much, and they may pull off that deal. If Chuck doesn't come back, they'll probably keep Pip and structure more of their offense around him.
I would like to know what is the big deal about Grant Hill? Since he has
been in the league, what has he done? Is he going to stay in Detroit or ask
to be traded? He has some talented players around him, Allan Iverson on the
other hand is the Sixers only star and he lead his team farther than Grant
Hill. Does Grant Hill want to win or does Grant Hill want to be a
pitchman?I think he very overrated! Phil school me, prove me wrong I don't know what to say except, you have a point. Grant hasn't had great talent around him, but it's been good enough for the Pistons to do more than they've done. You get the feeling that Iverson carried the Sixers by the sheer force of his will, for instance, but Hill didn't give you the same feeling with the Pistons. People have made a lot of excuses for him over the years -- he's never had a great teammate, he's never had a great coach, he's never had a true point guard -- but at some point, if he's as good as he's been made out to be, he has to overcome all of that. That might be the biggest knock on Grant in his pro career, he's never inspired the Pistons to overcome an obstacle, he's never taken a team any farther than you expected it to go. Sooner or later, if he's going to justify all those endorsements he gets, he's going to have to do that. The more time goes on, the more it seems like Grant's better suited to being a second banana, the way Pippen was to Jordan. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, it's just that Hill was supposed to need a supporting cast, not a leading man.
I am trying to figure out what the Cleveland Cavaliers
are trying to do. Why the major overhaul? I thought GM Wayne Embry and
coach Mike Fratello were doing O.K. jobs given the talent that they had. I
think with a healthy Zydrunas Ilgauskas this
team would have made the playoffs. Where do they go from here? What do you
think they need to become better? Cleveland fired Fratello not so much because of wins and losses, but because ownership couldn't watch the Cavs' boring style turn off fans any longer, and because Fratello didn't have the greatest relationship with some of his players, including Derek Anderson . The Cavs were afraid they would eventually lose Anderson to free agency if Fratello stayed. And it wasn't just Anderson. The players wanted more freedom to run, and Fratello just wouldn't give it to them. I can't really blame the Cavs for making the move. Yes, Fratello had to deal with a lot of injuries, but let's face it, this team was spinning its wheels. They were a middle of the pack club that wasn't exciting anyone. They need new blood and more of an uptempo style to keep the fan base from eroding any further. As for the future, they're lusting after Szczerbiak, who would be a great draft pick for them, and they would love to get an experienced big guard, a Mitch Richmond type.
Are the Raptors actually considering a Tracy McGrady trade?
Please say it ain't so. No one in this draft is gonna be as good as he is
so why pull the trigger? Why not draft Andre Miller to run what is becoming
a very rounded offense. He went to the World Championships, he's as
experienced as most fourth year players. You can relax, Craig. The Bulls want McGrady and draft choices for the No.1 pick of the draft, but Toronto GM Glen Grunwald apparently feels the way you do -- he says McGrady is untouchable. Of course, general managers have been known to change their minds, but I don't think Tracy's going anywhere. As for drafting Miller, he might be the right guy for the Raptors, but remember, he can't shoot. Even his college coach, Rick Majerus , says if he were drafting he'd have to think long and hard about taking him. Andre has a lot of other good qualities though (intelligence, strength, passing ability, a winner's toughness) much like the guy that a lot of NBA people are saying that Miller reminds them of -- Mark Jackson . Is that good enough? I'll let you decide.
I'm hearing that the Bulls are leaning towards picking Elton Brand
instead of Lamar Odom. Apparently the Bulls think Brand will be an
immediate impact. Do you think Odom's inexperience will hurt him in the
NBA or will the Bulls become the Celtics of the 2000's and take 10 years to
rebuild because of bad draft choices? Actually I'm hearing that Brand's stock is dropping a bit as people start to question whether he might be a little undersized to play power forward -- apparently the 6'8" height he was listed at is a bit of a stretch. Everyone I've talked to mentions three names as the possible No. 1: Odom, Steve Francis and Corey Maggette , not always in that order. I'd be shocked if the Bulls bypassed those three to take Brand. If I were picking, I think I'd take Odom. With his height and ability to play inside or outside, he's going to be causing matchup problems for the next dozen years. The only negative I've heard about him is that sometimes he's a little too willing to fade into the background. There are some people in the NBA and in college who think he should have been a much more dominant player in college.
Got an NBA question? Click here to e-mail Phil Taylor.
| |||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 1999 CNN/SI. A Time Warner Company. Terms under which this service is provided to you.
| |||||||||||||||||
